Quote from: Star One on 07/26/2024 10:19 amQuote from: deltaV on 07/09/2024 03:42 amQuote from: yg1968 on 07/09/2024 03:35 amHouse Appropriators Boost Mars Sample Return While Cutting Science Overall:https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-appropriators-boost-mars-sample-return-while-cutting-science-overall/https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1810517333674213486The headline should have been "House Appropriators Boost Pork, Cut Science". The house doesn't care about MSR, they're just chasing pork.Well your comment has already aged badly considering a certain rock just discovered on Mars and looks even more ill informed than the first time you made it.The 'certain rock' (presumably the 'Snow Lake' elemental Sulphur containing rock) was not sampled and Perseverance has since moved on, making that 'certain rock' irrelevant to future MSR funding.
Quote from: deltaV on 07/09/2024 03:42 amQuote from: yg1968 on 07/09/2024 03:35 amHouse Appropriators Boost Mars Sample Return While Cutting Science Overall:https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-appropriators-boost-mars-sample-return-while-cutting-science-overall/https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1810517333674213486The headline should have been "House Appropriators Boost Pork, Cut Science". The house doesn't care about MSR, they're just chasing pork.Well your comment has already aged badly considering a certain rock just discovered on Mars and looks even more ill informed than the first time you made it.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/09/2024 03:35 amHouse Appropriators Boost Mars Sample Return While Cutting Science Overall:https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-appropriators-boost-mars-sample-return-while-cutting-science-overall/https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1810517333674213486The headline should have been "House Appropriators Boost Pork, Cut Science". The house doesn't care about MSR, they're just chasing pork.
House Appropriators Boost Mars Sample Return While Cutting Science Overall:https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-appropriators-boost-mars-sample-return-while-cutting-science-overall/https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1810517333674213486
The rock — the rover’s 22nd rock core sample — was collected on July 21, as the rover explored the northern edge of Neretva Vallis, an ancient river valley measuring a quarter-mile (400 meters) wide that was carved by water rushing into Jezero Crater long ago.
Quote from: edzieba on 07/26/2024 10:28 amQuote from: Star One on 07/26/2024 10:19 amQuote from: deltaV on 07/09/2024 03:42 amQuote from: yg1968 on 07/09/2024 03:35 amHouse Appropriators Boost Mars Sample Return While Cutting Science Overall:https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-appropriators-boost-mars-sample-return-while-cutting-science-overall/https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1810517333674213486The headline should have been "House Appropriators Boost Pork, Cut Science". The house doesn't care about MSR, they're just chasing pork.Well your comment has already aged badly considering a certain rock just discovered on Mars and looks even more ill informed than the first time you made it.The 'certain rock' (presumably the 'Snow Lake' elemental Sulphur containing rock) was not sampled and Perseverance has since moved on, making that 'certain rock' irrelevant to future MSR funding.You were saying. If you’re going to comment about a mission at least keep up to date with it.QuoteThe rock — the rover’s 22nd rock core sample — was collected on July 21, as the rover explored the northern edge of Neretva Vallis, an ancient river valley measuring a quarter-mile (400 meters) wide that was carved by water rushing into Jezero Crater long ago.https://www.jpl.. nasa.gov/news/nasas-perseverance-rover-scienti"sts-find-intriguing-mars-rock
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/26/2024 03:18 amQuote from: pages 163 to 165 of the Senate CJS Appropriations ReportThe Committee directs NASA to provide a report, no later than 180 days after enactment of this act, on what steps are required to modify currently available cargo vehicles to a crewed variant, including vehicular modifications, cost, and timing.https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf1. I guess the Senate is probably asking about alternative LEO crew vehicles because they are worried that Starliner won't be an option.2. Dragon is already available in a crew version so I assume Congress means crewed versions of Cygnus and Dream Chaser. 3. Making Cygnus crewed sounds not much easier than building a new crewed vehicle from scratch since Cygnus does not return to Earth intact and that obviously would need to change to carry crew, which would probably require a dramatically different capsule-shaped outer mold line.4. Making Dream Chaser crewed sounds likely to be easier since it does return to Earth intact and Sierra Space has been planning a crewed version for a long time.5. NASA and Congress should also consider other crewed vehicles that NASA wouldn't have to pay all the costs for, such as the one Blue Origin is likely already developing (https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/blue-origin-staffing-up-to-build-a-human-spacecraft/).
Quote from: pages 163 to 165 of the Senate CJS Appropriations ReportThe Committee directs NASA to provide a report, no later than 180 days after enactment of this act, on what steps are required to modify currently available cargo vehicles to a crewed variant, including vehicular modifications, cost, and timing.https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf
The Committee directs NASA to provide a report, no later than 180 days after enactment of this act, on what steps are required to modify currently available cargo vehicles to a crewed variant, including vehicular modifications, cost, and timing.
Quote from: deltaV on 07/26/2024 04:58 amQuote from: yg1968 on 07/26/2024 03:18 amQuote from: pages 163 to 165 of the Senate CJS Appropriations ReportThe Committee directs NASA to provide a report, no later than 180 days after enactment of this act, on what steps are required to modify currently available cargo vehicles to a crewed variant, including vehicular modifications, cost, and timing.https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf1. I guess the Senate is probably asking about alternative LEO crew vehicles because they are worried that Starliner won't be an option.2. Dragon is already available in a crew version so I assume Congress means crewed versions of Cygnus and Dream Chaser. 3. Making Cygnus crewed sounds not much easier than building a new crewed vehicle from scratch since Cygnus does not return to Earth intact and that obviously would need to change to carry crew, which would probably require a dramatically different capsule-shaped outer mold line.4. Making Dream Chaser crewed sounds likely to be easier since it does return to Earth intact and Sierra Space has been planning a crewed version for a long time.5. NASA and Congress should also consider other crewed vehicles that NASA wouldn't have to pay all the costs for, such as the one Blue Origin is likely already developing (https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/blue-origin-staffing-up-to-build-a-human-spacecraft/).Yes, I agree with you. The language seems to favor crewed Dream Chaser. NASA has said that it would prefer if Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers had dissimilar redundant commercial crew transportation systems but it isn't entire clear how they will achieve that since it would be at the discretion of the CLD provider what commercial crew provider is actually used. It's still not clear to me if NASA should combine CLD and commercial crew into one program as they are trying to do now or have them as separate programs. Ideally, NASA should have seperate funding for certifying new transportation systems.
Yes, I agree with you. The language seems to favor crewed Dream Chaser. NASA has said that it would prefer if Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers had dissimilar redundant commercial crew transportation systems but it isn't entire clear how they will achieve that since it would be at the discretion of the CLD provider what commercial crew provider is actually used. It's still not clear to me if NASA should combine CLD and commercial crew into one program as they are trying to do now or have them as separate programs. Ideally, NASA should have seperate funding for certifying new transportation systems.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/26/2024 02:34 pmQuote from: deltaV on 07/26/2024 04:58 amQuote from: yg1968 on 07/26/2024 03:18 amQuote from: pages 163 to 165 of the Senate CJS Appropriations ReportThe Committee directs NASA to provide a report, no later than 180 days after enactment of this act, on what steps are required to modify currently available cargo vehicles to a crewed variant, including vehicular modifications, cost, and timing.https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf1. I guess the Senate is probably asking about alternative LEO crew vehicles because they are worried that Starliner won't be an option.2. Dragon is already available in a crew version so I assume Congress means crewed versions of Cygnus and Dream Chaser. 3. Making Cygnus crewed sounds not much easier than building a new crewed vehicle from scratch since Cygnus does not return to Earth intact and that obviously would need to change to carry crew, which would probably require a dramatically different capsule-shaped outer mold line.4. Making Dream Chaser crewed sounds likely to be easier since it does return to Earth intact and Sierra Space has been planning a crewed version for a long time.5. NASA and Congress should also consider other crewed vehicles that NASA wouldn't have to pay all the costs for, such as the one Blue Origin is likely already developing (https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/blue-origin-staffing-up-to-build-a-human-spacecraft/).Yes, I agree with you. The language seems to favor crewed Dream Chaser. NASA has said that it would prefer if Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers had dissimilar redundant commercial crew transportation systems but it isn't entire clear how they will achieve that since it would be at the discretion of the CLD provider what commercial crew provider is actually used. It's still not clear to me if NASA should combine CLD and commercial crew into one program as they are trying to do now or have them as separate programs. Ideally, NASA should have seperate funding for certifying new transportation systems.Crewed EDL Starship may (or may not) be ready before crewed Dream Chaser. If so, SpaceX would have dissimilar systems. They could then spin off Falcon 9 and Dragon to provide the specialty Dragon service as a separate provider. By that point in its life, Falcon 9 would have very few other customers.Yes, there are any number of exciting ways that the Starship program could fail, just as Starliner or Dream Chaser could fail.
Lunar Discovery and Exploration.—The recommendation includes up to the request level for Lunar Discovery and Exploration, including $22,100,000 to continue the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and not less than the request level for Commercial Lunar Payload Services. The Committee supports NASA’s commitment to utilizing public-private partnerships to advance its lunar science and exploration agenda and encourages the agency to leverage the resources and expertise of both private industry and universities in pursuit of these goals. Developing an industrial base of new space companies is paramount for the United States to be a leader in returning to the Moon and increasing cislunar operations. The Committee directs the Lunar Discovery and Exploration program to adhere to the lunar science priorities established by decadal surveys and the National Research Council’s consensus report titled ‘‘Scientific Context for the Exploration of the Moon.’’ Activities funded within the program should meet both lunar science and human exploration needs.
Commercial LEO Development.—The Committee supports maintaining the ISS as long as it can be operated safely. However, it is anticipated that current commercial efforts to develop viable alternatives will allow NASA to meet anticipated mission requirements using free-flying space stations in LEO before the end of the decade. The recommendation provides not less than the budget request of $169,600,000 for Commercial LEO activities to allow for continued opportunities for LEO commercialization that are not primarily dependent on continual NASA funding. This funding should be primarily focused on solving supply rather than demand problems. NASA’s goal should be to buy services to meet its needs and grow promising research across all industries rather than to fund one-time novelty events, which are not indicators of future sustainable expansion of commercial activity in LEO. NASA shall not use funds provided in this or any other act to subsidize the cost of any project that is primarily intended for marketing, advertising, or entertainment. Within 90 days of enactment of this act, NASA shall brief the Committee on current plans for rapid and cost-effective Commercial LEO Destination [CLD] capabilities. This briefing should include an assessment of the potential benefits of NASA’s CLD requirements being met by a mix of different services from CLD teams instead of requiring nearly identical services from providers and of NASA taking incremental steps towards more advanced CLD capabilities over time.
Quote from: pages 163 to 165 of the Senate CJS Appropriations ReportThe Committee provides not less than the request level for the Space Launch System [SLS], Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle [Orion] and Exploration Ground Systems [EGS]. These funding levels ensure the earliest possible crewed launch of SLS, as well as prepare for the development of future science and crewed missions. However, NASA must effectively manage the cost and schedule of the agency’s highest priority missions, especially in light of a constrained fiscal environment. The Committee is concerned that cost overruns for flagship missions, including those in the Exploration Directorate are affecting programs across the agency and that, in the long term, NASA must drive down launch costs to ensure the long-term success of the Artemis campaign. The Committee acknowledges the OIG’s findings in IG–24–001 that the lack of competition for heavy-lift services are impeding the ability to drive down exploration launch costs. Therefore, not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, NASA shall provide the Committee with a report outlining how the agency is planning on reducing launch costs beginning with Artemis V. The report should include progress on implementing the recommendations in IG–24–001 and an analysis of how commercial launch options could be part of the agency’s long-term strategy.https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf
The Committee provides not less than the request level for the Space Launch System [SLS], Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle [Orion] and Exploration Ground Systems [EGS]. These funding levels ensure the earliest possible crewed launch of SLS, as well as prepare for the development of future science and crewed missions. However, NASA must effectively manage the cost and schedule of the agency’s highest priority missions, especially in light of a constrained fiscal environment. The Committee is concerned that cost overruns for flagship missions, including those in the Exploration Directorate are affecting programs across the agency and that, in the long term, NASA must drive down launch costs to ensure the long-term success of the Artemis campaign. The Committee acknowledges the OIG’s findings in IG–24–001 that the lack of competition for heavy-lift services are impeding the ability to drive down exploration launch costs. Therefore, not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, NASA shall provide the Committee with a report outlining how the agency is planning on reducing launch costs beginning with Artemis V. The report should include progress on implementing the recommendations in IG–24–001 and an analysis of how commercial launch options could be part of the agency’s long-term strategy.
House Republicans on Friday unveiled their highly anticipated plan to avert a government shutdown that is sure to upset Democrats and has already drawn skepticism from some in the GOP. The 46-page plan would keep the government funded into March 2025 [...].And Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement this week that a “continuing resolution that ends in December—rather than one that lasts a half year—is better for our national security and military readiness, veterans and their families, victims recovering from natural disasters, and all hardworking American taxpayers.”
U.S. House leaders unveiled a bipartisan funding agreement on Sunday to avoid a government shutdown. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced the legislation to fund the government until December 20.
